Unfortunately, the evidence by Theresa knott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch/Evi... and my own experience with Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin does not lead me to believe it was a polite warning. Rather than simply stating that they have to do it, and following through, they repeated the threat (one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... ).
I read this as an attempt to drive off an opponent in a content dispute, pure and simple. Sxeptomaniac
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:43:19 -0500, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
There are many, many different professions with affirmative reporting requirements. I've been using the word 'warning' instead of 'threat' because threat implies a particular tone that is entirely different. A warning might be "You've mentioned you work in the Air Force, but please be aware that if you provide more completely identifying information about yourself I or others may have to report you." Now, thats polite, isn't a threat and is issued in a situation where "just go ahead and do it" doesn't apply.
The reason the "whole conversation has been about the former" in this case is because that is most closely what happened (between OM and VO) *and* it is the situation with policy implications. (On-wiki incivility is dealt with by policy, off-wiki non-harassing incivility is irrelevant). I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
For examples of some professions who must report information in various situations: Physicians, lawyers, judges, psychologists, school administrators, teachers, social workers, guidance counselors, essentially all law enforcement, military personnel. This class obviously includes many millions of people, so it makes sense to adjust the policy to account for the affirmative reporting requirement issue. Nathan
On Jan 3, 2008 5:15 PM, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 2:00 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
(Unless you were told to make the threat in exchange for your family's life? ... Yes, I'm being facetious. :) )
It still wouldn't be ethical. It might be necessary, but it wouldn't be ethical.
-- --jpgordon ????
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Message: 6 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:47:37 -0500 From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability etymology and history (was Re: WP:EPISODE) To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 71cd4dd90801031447x656bce6ck4fa66b148456e728@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 1/3/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 9:19 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I also thought of something while waiting for your response. If maintenance is the problem, wouldn't protection be better than deletion? Instead of deleting 80% of articles on "universities" to reduce the maintenance load, why not protect them on a rotating schedule where 20% are unprotected each day during a five day period?
WP:CREEP aside, sounds like a maintenance nightmare, unless it could be done by bots. IMHO it would be better to coordinate maintenance in a useful way rather than skipping a coordination attempt and going right to protection.
It'd definitely have to be done by bots, if not coded into the software. And yeah, doing a better job of maintenance would be a much better solution. I only presented protection as a better solution than deletion for dealing with problems of vandalism.
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:06:24 -0500 From: gwern0@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting fact To: kmw@armory.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 20080103230624.GC10702@localhost Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On 2007.12.30 11:03:14 -0600, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com scribbled 0.7K characters:
On Sunday 30 December 2007 07:33, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/2007, Nachman nachman.chayal@gmail.com wrote:
The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA job fair representative."
That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably true.
After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to the sort that is measured by IQ tests.
Has it ever occurred to you all that perhaps people whose life work is intelligence gathering might actually know more about it than a bunch of random jokers on the Internet? -- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
[[Open Source Intelligence]].
No. No, not really. I suspect I dropped that idea somewhere along the line - although I couldn't tell you whether it was the cyborg cats, the remote viewing, the MKULTRA and more covert programs, the sponsorship of heroin and cocaine criminal syndicates (to say nothing of the right-wing dictatorships), the poisoned cigar and wetsuits, or what which specifically disabused me of that idea.
-- gwern OIR man transfer Meade ADIU Team VGPL DST plutonium MD5
I'll save you the "digging" and copy in what he wrote:
Mike wrote:
I'm probably missing something, but it doesn't seem to me to be a legal threat if one editor notifies another editor that the latter's participation may raise UCMJ or regulations problems. This is not the same thing as threatening to sue. Nor does it strike me as a legal threat to note that some members of the armed forces may be compelled by UCMJ or related regulation to report on-wiki activity that looks like a serviceman (or servicewoman) violating regulation or policy.
To me, a legal threat would look something like this: "If you don't do X (or cease doing Y), then I'm going to report you to the authorities and get you in trouble with your CO." It would *not* look like this: "I'm just letting you know that your participation in this way may create problems for you under the UCMJ or regulations, especially because some of us are obligated by that legal framework to report apparent violations."
My interpretation of at least part of the above is:
A politely worded warning of a legal obligation to report is not considered a legal threat, as it is distinct from a 'threat to sue.'
I previously wrote:
I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
I stand by the interpretation I made in both sentences, and I'm disappointed that you decided I was intentionally misrepresenting Mike's opinion without actually bothering to take the time to look up what he wrote.
Nathan
Mike's responsibility is to inform us of our *legal* obligations. NLT is a * social* obligation at Wikipedia, and it's outside of his remit.
On Jan 3, 2008 5:51 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'll save you the "digging" and copy in what he wrote:
Mike wrote:
I'm probably missing something, but it doesn't seem to me to be a legal threat if one editor notifies another editor that the latter's participation may raise UCMJ or regulations problems. This is not the same thing as threatening to sue. Nor does it strike me as a legal threat to note that some members of the armed forces may be compelled by UCMJ or related regulation to report on-wiki activity that looks like a serviceman (or servicewoman) violating regulation or policy.
To me, a legal threat would look something like this: "If you don't do X (or cease doing Y), then I'm going to report you to the authorities and get you in trouble with your CO." It would *not* look like this: "I'm just letting you know that your participation in this way may create problems for you under the UCMJ or regulations, especially because some of us are obligated by that legal framework to report apparent violations."
My interpretation of at least part of the above is:
A politely worded warning of a legal obligation to report is not considered a legal threat, as it is distinct from a 'threat to sue.'
I previously wrote:
I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
I stand by the interpretation I made in both sentences, and I'm disappointed that you decided I was intentionally misrepresenting Mike's opinion without actually bothering to take the time to look up what he wrote.
Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I would say that his opinion of what constitutes a legal threat should bear some significant weight even if, as you say, its outside his area of responsibility as counsel (which is not for you or I to determine, but the Board in consultation with Mike).
On Jan 3, 2008 6:06 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I would say that his opinion of what constitutes a legal threat should bear some significant weight even if, as you say, its outside his area of responsibility as counsel (which is not for you or I to determine, but the Board in consultation with Mike).
I disagree; Mike defines what a legal *issue* is (in terms of, how credible a threat is, or whether a complaint or claim filed has merit legally), but NLT is an on-wiki behavior policy, not a legal policy.
I could make a legal threat by posting on ANI: "I'm suing NewYorkBrad and the Wikimedia Foundation and everyone who posted to ANI today for negligence for Brad's admitting to wearing a blue tie today in violation of Red Tie Day, as clearly announced April 1 last year on my talk page!".
That is not a credible legal threat. But it violates NLT.
(please don't kill me, Brad! 8-)
George Herbert wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 6:06 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I would say that his opinion of what constitutes a legal threat should bear some significant weight even if, as you say, its outside his area of responsibility as counsel (which is not for you or I to determine, but the Board in consultation with Mike).
I disagree; Mike defines what a legal *issue* is (in terms of, how credible a threat is, or whether a complaint or claim filed has merit legally), but NLT is an on-wiki behavior policy, not a legal policy.
One thing to keep in mind is that we have a lot of edgy people around here who are willing to read any statement in its worst light. The line between threat, warning and friendly advice is often in the eye of the beholder. Wording that seems benign to the person giving the warning can too easily seem like intimidation to the person being warned. If it comes in the middle of an unrelated dispute it only exacerbates the problem. It also makes things worse when the warning is rooted in a misconception of the law or a too broad reading of the law.
Ec
On Jan 4, 2008 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that we have a lot of edgy people around here who are willing to read any statement in its worst light.
Partly because there are plenty of people who would mean that worst light, however. It's hard to tell intention at the best of times; informal written communication is really bad at conveying it.
The line between threat, warning and friendly advice is often in the eye of the beholder. Wording that seems benign to the person giving the warning can too easily seem like intimidation to the person being warned. If it comes in the middle of an unrelated dispute it only exacerbates the problem.
It's probably not a good idea to issue 'friendly warnings' or 'friendly advice' about what trouble someone could get in from their employers if you are in a dispute with them. It's a common enough threat pattern that a sensible person should avoid it even if it's not what they mean.
It also makes things worse when the warning is rooted in a misconception of the law or a too broad reading of the law.
Indeed. Especially common when someone actually wants to give the other party a scare or a caution.
People are also very good at post hoc rationalization of their actions; "I only meant to give a friendly warning", etc. If you sent someone such a warning in the middle of a dispute, you probably did intend to influence their behavior to your benefit.
-Matt
I'm not sure you're correct. NLT is an enwiki policy, to my knowledge, not a Foundation policy.
On Jan 3, 2008 6:06 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I would say that his opinion of what constitutes a legal threat should bear some significant weight even if, as you say, its outside his area of responsibility as counsel (which is not for you or I to determine, but the Board in consultation with Mike).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
Another day, another poll. But what worries me here is that the advocates have opened a poll for 6 days in the holidays and intend that should determine the mind of the community. It ends on Sunday, and they are already declaring vicrory with only 49 supports.
Polls are evil, but, whatever you think of the proposal, this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one.
Doc
On 04/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
Another day, another poll. But what worries me here is that the advocates have opened a poll for 6 days in the holidays and intend that should determine the mind of the community. It ends on Sunday, and they are already declaring vicrory with only 49 supports.
Interesting indeed.
I didn't even know there *was* polling - I saw it being discussed on IRC the other day and got the impression that adopting rollback had been decided on at some point already, and I just hadn't heard about it.
I agree. I'm not really familiar with what the admin rollback tool is so I have no opinion on this issue, but 6 days while much of Wikipedia is away is not sufficient time to judge a consensus. The poll should probably be extended to last at least a month.
On Jan 3, 2008 10:13 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
Another day, another poll. But what worries me here is that the advocates have opened a poll for 6 days in the holidays and intend that should determine the mind of the community. It ends on Sunday, and they are already declaring vicrory with only 49 supports.
Polls are evil, but, whatever you think of the proposal, this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one.
Doc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Doc,
That was really off the mark. There are some very good contributors, so consider their good faith.
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of doc Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:14 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] A six-day roll-back poll?
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
Another day, another poll. But what worries me here is that the advocates have opened a poll for 6 days in the holidays and intend that should determine the mind of the community. It ends on Sunday, and they are already declaring vicrory with only 49 supports.
Polls are evil, but, whatever you think of the proposal, this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one.
Doc
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 3, 2008 10:13 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
Another day, another poll. But what worries me here is that the advocates have opened a poll for 6 days in the holidays and intend that should determine the mind of the community. It ends on Sunday, and they are already declaring vicrory with only 49 supports.
Polls are evil, but, whatever you think of the proposal, this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one.
Doc
I agree with you fully, Doc. Indeed, six days is never sufficient. How long did we run the WP:ATT poll? Several weeks, for sure - and it was advertised on watchlist banners.
I have noticed that there is a trend happening here - modifications being made to policies without putting them on CENT and having discussion...then when someone finds the modifications and reverts it, being told, "no it's been like this for a long time, so therefore it's consensus." There seems to be a real push from some (but granted, not all) people to have their preferred versions, whether policy or practice, approved without full discussion.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Risker wrote:
I agree with you fully, Doc. Indeed, six days is never sufficient. How long did we run the WP:ATT poll? Several weeks, for sure - and it was advertised on watchlist banners.
I have noticed that there is a trend happening here - modifications being made to policies without putting them on CENT and having discussion...then when someone finds the modifications and reverts it, being told, "no it's been like this for a long time, so therefore it's consensus." There seems to be a real push from some (but granted, not all) people to have their preferred versions, whether policy or practice, approved without full discussion.
Risker
In fairness, I think it was advertised on CENT and AN, but not here - (although I suggested to the managers of the poll that they did and was dismissed).
The main problem is thinking you can demonstrate a new consensus with a poll held over 6 holiday days (especially when 400+ opined on the last no-consensus poll). And, despite my urging the promoters, they rejected the idea of extending it.
Sometimes moving fast and breaking logjams is commendable - especially if your proposed change is reversible. Here, I think it is an error in judgement by people who are just a little too keen.
Doc
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 03:52:07 +0000 From: doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A six-day roll-back poll?
Risker wrote:
I agree with you fully, Doc. Indeed, six days is never sufficient. How long did we run the WP:ATT poll? Several weeks, for sure - and it was advertised on watchlist banners.
I have noticed that there is a trend happening here - modifications being made to policies without putting them on CENT and having discussion...then when someone finds the modifications and reverts it, being told, "no it's been like this for a long time, so therefore it's consensus." There seems to be a real push from some (but granted, not all) people to have their preferred versions, whether policy or practice, approved without full discussion.
Risker
In fairness, I think it was advertised on CENT and AN, but not here - (although I suggested to the managers of the poll that they did and was dismissed).
The main problem is thinking you can demonstrate a new consensus with a poll held over 6 holiday days (especially when 400+ opined on the last no-consensus poll). And, despite my urging the promoters, they rejected the idea of extending it.
Sometimes moving fast and breaking logjams is commendable - especially if your proposed change is reversible. Here, I think it is an error in judgement by people who are just a little too keen.
Doc
Good work doc with the cavassing - great way to play it.
Ryan
_________________________________________________________________ Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. http://www.searchgamesbox.com
Ryan Postlethwaite wrote:
Good work doc with the cavassing - great way to play it.
Ryan
Em? Canvasing? I simply let people know about a discussion you were conduction. I fail to see how that's a Bad Thing? I have not given my own opinions, or suggested that people oppose or support. If you are really wanting to gauge consensus, then I'm not sure why my actions distress you?
Doc
I was always under the impression that making non-admin rollback was a bit pointless, since it's something that any user can do with a script.
--Ned Scott
On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:13 PM, doc wrote:
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
Another day, another poll. But what worries me here is that the advocates have opened a poll for 6 days in the holidays and intend that should determine the mind of the community. It ends on Sunday, and they are already declaring vicrory with only 49 supports.
Polls are evil, but, whatever you think of the proposal, this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one.
Doc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/4/08, Ned Scott ned@nedscott.com wrote:
I was always under the impression that making non-admin rollback was a bit pointless, since it's something that any user can do with a script.
Quite the contrary, as I understand it. Not pointless, but rather denying it from people is pointless for that very reason. Tim Starling also said (if I recall correctly) that using the inbuilt functionality is slightly more efficient demand-wise than with external scripts.
If you need to use your own scripts, it basically penalises those who have very low end soft/hardware and or technical knowhow.
So this is both recognizing what is basically the de facto situation, and a move to greater equality between regular users.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Doc,
That was really off the mark. Who is trying to pull a fast one? There are some very good contributors, so consider their good faith.
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of doc Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:14 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] A six-day roll-back poll?
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
Another day, another poll. But what worries me here is that the advocates have opened a poll for 6 days in the holidays and intend that should determine the mind of the community. It ends on Sunday, and they are already declaring vicrory with only 49 supports.
Polls are evil, but, whatever you think of the proposal, this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one.
Doc
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 4, 2008 8:53 AM, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
That was really off the mark. Who is trying to pull a fast one? There are some very good contributors, so consider their good faith.
Not to get in between you two, but may I point out what he actually said?
"Polls are evil, but, whatever you think of the proposal, this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one."
There is no statement of determination there; he never said anyone *was* pulling a fast one. I don't see any breach of AGF here.
NavouWiki wrote:
Doc,
That was really off the mark. Who is trying to pull a fast one? There are some very good contributors, so consider their good faith.
Merc
Sorry, I had a long IRC conversation with them and stressed my strong objections to the short length and Christmas timing of the poll. I stated that it felt manipulative, and pressed for a longer time period. They essentially saw my attempts to extend it as being attempts to wreck it. They were more interested in pressing the thing home, than waiting till people returned from their holidays to give their opinions. My good faith assuming was approaching exhaustion at that point (but still in with a shout).
Given the low level of involvement at that point (about 60 people in 5 of the 7 days they were allowing), I also suggested that THEY use the official mailing list to raise the profile of the discussion. Again I was rebuffed and told that engaging with the people who read the mailing list was quite pointless.
What finished off my assuming good faith was their reaction to my posting here. When they declined to do so, I posted here myself last night pointing people to the debate, and expressing my concerns over its timing - I did NOT give my view of the proposal itself. (And I told them I was intending on doing this.) I'd say my advertising was successful, as there's been dozens of new contributions on *both sides* of the debate in the last hours. However, I have been accused of canvasing, "inappropriate and deceptive" behaviour and various other personal attacks.
Where is their assumption of my good faith? Their overreaction to me publicising this rather serves to confirm my suspicion that this was an attempt to game the system.
Doc
Doc, you've come here looking for opposes, simple as that. It was obvious by your tone that you were ABF and wanted people to pop along so you could get your own way. We weren't pulling a fast one in the slightest, we advertised it on the admin noticeboard,VP, the centralised discussion template - now I've done a watchlist notice just to make sure everyone see's it. Your ascertation that we were trying to pull a fast one is completely false and has no merit whatsoever - I said it on your talk page, running to the mailing list because you don't get your own way is quite frankly sad.
Ryan
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:08:05 +0000 From: doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A six-day roll-back poll?
NavouWiki wrote:
Doc,
That was really off the mark. Who is trying to pull a fast one? There are some very good contributors, so consider their good faith.
Merc
Sorry, I had a long IRC conversation with them and stressed my strong objections to the short length and Christmas timing of the poll. I stated that it felt manipulative, and pressed for a longer time period. They essentially saw my attempts to extend it as being attempts to wreck it. They were more interested in pressing the thing home, than waiting till people returned from their holidays to give their opinions. My good faith assuming was approaching exhaustion at that point (but still in with a shout).
Given the low level of involvement at that point (about 60 people in 5 of the 7 days they were allowing), I also suggested that THEY use the official mailing list to raise the profile of the discussion. Again I was rebuffed and told that engaging with the people who read the mailing list was quite pointless.
What finished off my assuming good faith was their reaction to my posting here. When they declined to do so, I posted here myself last night pointing people to the debate, and expressing my concerns over its timing - I did NOT give my view of the proposal itself. (And I told them I was intending on doing this.) I'd say my advertising was successful, as there's been dozens of new contributions on *both sides* of the debate in the last hours. However, I have been accused of canvasing, "inappropriate and deceptive" behaviour and various other personal attacks.
Where is their assumption of my good faith? Their overreaction to me publicising this rather serves to confirm my suspicion that this was an attempt to game the system.
Doc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Fancy some celeb spotting? https://www.celebmashup.com
On Jan 4, 2008 9:40 AM, Ryan Postlethwaite ryanpostlethwaite@hotmail.com wrote:
Doc, you've come here looking for opposes, simple as that. It was obvious by your tone that you were ABF and wanted people to pop along so you could get your own way. We weren't pulling a fast one in the slightest, we advertised it on the admin noticeboard,VP, the centralised discussion template - now I've done a watchlist notice just to make sure everyone see's it. Your ascertation that we were trying to pull a fast one is completely false and has no merit whatsoever - I said it on your talk page, running to the mailing list because you don't get your own way is quite frankly sad.
Regardless of doc's good faith (or lack of it), why would you not want to publicise this on the mailing list? Why would you be opposed to an extension in the length of the straw poll? I'm not trying to insinuate anything - I'm genuinely curious. What is the basis for thinking that a 6-day straw poll is sufficient to determine consensus on a major change to policy?
Johnleemk
Canvassing paranoia. Doc's motives aside, whatever they might be, such a message wouldn't even be effective in canvassing.
--Ned Scott
On Jan 4, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Ryan Postlethwaite wrote:
Doc, you've come here looking for opposes, simple as that. It was obvious by your tone that you were ABF and wanted people to pop along so you could get your own way. We weren't pulling a fast one in the slightest, we advertised it on the admin noticeboard,VP, the centralised discussion template - now I've done a watchlist notice just to make sure everyone see's it. Your ascertation that we were trying to pull a fast one is completely false and has no merit whatsoever - I said it on your talk page, running to the mailing list because you don't get your own way is quite frankly sad.
Ryan
Sheesh, some of the opposers are getting rough treatment on that proposal. Seems unnecessary, especially when there is a "discussion" section and the !vote sections are set apart to make the fact that they are being numbered clear.
On Jan 4, 2008 11:46 AM, Ned Scott ned@nedscott.com wrote:
Canvassing paranoia. Doc's motives aside, whatever they might be, such a message wouldn't even be effective in canvassing.
--Ned Scott
On Jan 4, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Ryan Postlethwaite wrote:
Doc, you've come here looking for opposes, simple as that. It was obvious by your tone that you were ABF and wanted people to pop along so you could get your own way. We weren't pulling a fast one in the slightest, we advertised it on the admin noticeboard,VP, the centralised discussion template - now I've done a watchlist notice just to make sure everyone see's it. Your ascertation that we were trying to pull a fast one is completely false and has no merit whatsoever - I said it on your talk page, running to the mailing list because you don't get your own way is quite frankly sad.
Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ned Scott wrote:
Canvassing paranoia. Doc's motives aside, whatever they might be, such a message wouldn't even be effective in canvassing.
--Ned Scott
Quite. I've just had this described to me as my attempt to "run to the mailing list with your little buddies". Whilst I hope I'm amicably regarded here, I doubt you are all likely to perform as my meatpuppets in quite the way that implies.....if only.....
doc
On Jan 4, 2008 12:21 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Quite. I've just had this described to me as my attempt to "run to the mailing list with your little buddies". Whilst I hope I'm amicably regarded here, I doubt you are all likely to perform as my meatpuppets in quite the way that implies.....if only.....
doc
That description would imply (assuming they are the same users, which they may not be) that they are "running to their IRC channel with their little buddies." Can't have your cake and eat it too.
On another note, this thread reminds me of why I stopped reading this mailing list a while ago: ZOMG DRAMA!
I'm sure you could have put it another way then you did.
But to link to a discussion, then to say "you feel" like a fast one is being pulled, I think was improper. You may not have meant it, but it had the unintended effect of being in the back of my mind when I was evaluating the discussion. We have to be mindful that we do not canvass, directly or indirectly. We also have to be careful not to sully people unintentionally.
..."this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pull_a_fast_one
Please consider your wording when linking discussion in the future on this list.
Best regards,
Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of doc Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:08 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A six-day roll-back poll?
NavouWiki wrote:
Doc,
That was really off the mark. Who is trying to pull a fast one? There
are
some very good contributors, so consider their good faith.
Merc
Sorry, I had a long IRC conversation with them and stressed my strong objections to the short length and Christmas timing of the poll. I stated that it felt manipulative, and pressed for a longer time period. They essentially saw my attempts to extend it as being attempts to wreck it. They were more interested in pressing the thing home, than waiting till people returned from their holidays to give their opinions. My good faith assuming was approaching exhaustion at that point (but still in with a shout).
Given the low level of involvement at that point (about 60 people in 5 of the 7 days they were allowing), I also suggested that THEY use the official mailing list to raise the profile of the discussion. Again I was rebuffed and told that engaging with the people who read the mailing list was quite pointless.
What finished off my assuming good faith was their reaction to my posting here. When they declined to do so, I posted here myself last night pointing people to the debate, and expressing my concerns over its timing - I did NOT give my view of the proposal itself. (And I told them I was intending on doing this.) I'd say my advertising was successful, as there's been dozens of new contributions on *both sides* of the debate in the last hours. However, I have been accused of canvasing, "inappropriate and deceptive" behaviour and various other personal attacks.
Where is their assumption of my good faith? Their overreaction to me publicising this rather serves to confirm my suspicion that this was an attempt to game the system.
Doc
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
NavouWiki wrote:
I'm sure you could have put it another way then you did.
But to link to a discussion, then to say "you feel" like a fast one is being pulled, I think was improper. You may not have meant it, but it had the unintended effect of being in the back of my mind when I was evaluating the discussion. We have to be mindful that we do not canvass, directly or indirectly. We also have to be careful not to sully people unintentionally.
..."this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pull_a_fast_one
Please consider your wording when linking discussion in the future on this list.
Best regards,
Mercury
I firstly invited the proposers to advertise here themselves, they didn't want to.
Frankly, the timing of the poll with its incredibly short duration, and the dismissal of the concerns when I raised them quietly with the proposers worried me far more than the policy itself. Attempts to create policy in this way look less than transparent.
I was not posting here to "advertise" the poll, as much as to express my frustration and concern at the way it was being conducted.
Am I not allowed to do that? Does NPOV apply to the mailing list now?
Doc
Forget NPOV, forget policy. I'm talking about doing what is right.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem noun 2. an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself
As I am sure this was unintentional, it unfortunate that it was ad hominem for you to link to the discussion then accuse folks that are conducting it "pulling a fast one". In this environment, it is unhelpful and appears improper.
It is proper for you to say things like
-quote- Does NPOV apply to the mailing list now? - end quote -
But the more you do, the less I'll say things like
-quote- " You may not have meant it [canvassing]" And " As I am sure this was unintentional [attacking opponents credit]" -end quote-
I hope it was unintentional that you did in fact do these things.
Regards, Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of doc Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:28 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A six-day roll-back poll?
NavouWiki wrote:
I'm sure you could have put it another way then you did.
But to link to a discussion, then to say "you feel" like a fast one is
being
pulled, I think was improper. You may not have meant it, but it had the unintended effect of being in the back of my mind when I was evaluating
the
discussion. We have to be mindful that we do not canvass, directly or indirectly. We also have to be careful not to sully people
unintentionally.
..."this one feels a little like an attempt to pull a fast one."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pull_a_fast_one
Please consider your wording when linking discussion in the future on this list.
Best regards,
Mercury
I firstly invited the proposers to advertise here themselves, they didn't want to.
Frankly, the timing of the poll with its incredibly short duration, and the dismissal of the concerns when I raised them quietly with the proposers worried me far more than the policy itself. Attempts to create policy in this way look less than transparent.
I was not posting here to "advertise" the poll, as much as to express my frustration and concern at the way it was being conducted.
Am I not allowed to do that? Does NPOV apply to the mailing list now?
Doc
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 4, 2008 10:44 AM, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Forget NPOV, forget policy. I'm talking about doing what is right.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem noun 2. an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself
As I am sure this was unintentional, it unfortunate that it was ad hominem for you to link to the discussion then accuse folks that are conducting it "pulling a fast one". In this environment, it is unhelpful and appears improper.
When policy appears to be effected by a fait accompli, pointing it out isn't an ad hominem. Doc was arguably attacking those behind the policy, but he was equally attacking a potential implementation of the policy based on limited attempts to gather consensus. Regardless of whether he cast aspersions on their credibility, he was also casting aspersions on the attempt to gather consensus, which is a perfectly valid argument.
Johnleemk
On Jan 3, 2008 7:13 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
ZOMG drama indeed.... but as to the substance of this proposal, I thought that particular perennial proposal more or less went away when the "undo" button was instituted on diffs? Hmm, apparently not.
As far as I can tell, the differences between rollback and undo are that a) rollback shows up in the page history and user contribution histories as well as diffs; b) rollback doesn't require you to hit "save" a second time; c) rollback is easier to make mistakes with because you can undo more than one diff at a time (i.e. everything by an author). Am I missing anything?
-- phoebe
On Jan 4, 2008 2:28 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 7:13 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
ZOMG drama indeed.... but as to the substance of this proposal, I thought that particular perennial proposal more or less went away when the "undo" button was instituted on diffs? Hmm, apparently not.
As far as I can tell, the differences between rollback and undo are that a) rollback shows up in the page history and user contribution histories as well as diffs; b) rollback doesn't require you to hit "save" a second time; c) rollback is easier to make mistakes with because you can undo more than one diff at a time (i.e. everything by an author). Am I missing anything?
-- phoebe
No to point A (rollback and undo both show up in contributions/history, just like every other edit, I'm 95% sure of this). Yes to point B. No to point C (you can undo multiple edits too by viewing a diff page that has unshown intermediate diffs). AFAIK all that "undo" does is act like you clicked the "edit" link on the older diff displayed and fills in a default edit summary.
Also AFAIK, "rollback" is special in only a few ways:
1. The edit summary is filled automatically and cannot be changed.
2. It does not require two page loads, only one.
3. It fails if the document was edited since you loaded the diff.
Considering point 3, rollback is actually a bit safer than undo. (In my experience, conflict detection when editing from an old revision can be flaky.)
Disclaimer: This is all based on observation during countless RC patrol sessions and (though I am a PHP hacker) not through examination of the MediaWiki sources.
No to point A (rollback and undo both show up in contributions/history, just like every other edit, I'm 95% sure of this).
Undo and rollback are technically edits just like any other contribution, so yes they show up in recent changes, Special:Contributions, the page history, etc.
The difference being, rollback doesn't bring up a confirmation page, showing you your changes and asking you to check them, meaning one can adapt or change the edit summary from the default "undid revision...., like undo. With rollback, however, it's quite literally you click the button and your changes are made: an automated edit summary, and all very much immediately done.
Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 04/01/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:28 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 7:13 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500
people
voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
ZOMG drama indeed.... but as to the substance of this proposal, I thought that particular perennial proposal more or less went away when the "undo" button was instituted on diffs? Hmm, apparently not.
As far as I can tell, the differences between rollback and undo are that a) rollback shows up in the page history and user contribution histories as well as diffs; b) rollback doesn't require you to hit "save" a second time; c) rollback is easier to make mistakes with because you can undo more than one diff at a time (i.e. everything by an author). Am I missing anything?
-- phoebe
No to point A (rollback and undo both show up in contributions/history, just like every other edit, I'm 95% sure of this). Yes to point B. No to point C (you can undo multiple edits too by viewing a diff page that has unshown intermediate diffs). AFAIK all that "undo" does is act like you clicked the "edit" link on the older diff displayed and fills in a default edit summary.
Also AFAIK, "rollback" is special in only a few ways:
The edit summary is filled automatically and cannot be changed.
It does not require two page loads, only one.
It fails if the document was edited since you loaded the diff.
Considering point 3, rollback is actually a bit safer than undo. (In my experience, conflict detection when editing from an old revision can be flaky.)
Disclaimer: This is all based on observation during countless RC patrol sessions and (though I am a PHP hacker) not through examination of the MediaWiki sources.
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 4, 2008 11:57 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:28 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, the differences between rollback and undo are that a) rollback shows up in the page history and user contribution histories as well as diffs; b) rollback doesn't require you to hit "save" a second time; c) rollback is easier to make mistakes with because you can undo more than one diff at a time (i.e. everything by an author). Am I missing anything?
-- phoebe
No to point A (rollback and undo both show up in contributions/history, just like every other edit, I'm 95% sure of this). Yes to point B. No to point C (you can undo multiple edits too by viewing a diff page that has unshown intermediate diffs). AFAIK all that "undo" does is act like you clicked the "edit" link on the older diff displayed and fills in a default edit summary.
Um, to be clear, I meant under point a) that a *link* to rollback shows up in the page history and contribution histories, whereas a link to undo only shows up in when you're comparing diffs. Thus, the rollback link is easier to get to. Changes made with either button do indeed show up as normal edits. Sorry about unclear wording...
Anyway, thanks everyone for your feedback. -- phoebe
On Jan 5, 2008 9:22 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 11:57 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:28 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, the differences between rollback and undo are that a) rollback shows up in the page history and user contribution histories as well as diffs; b) rollback doesn't require you to hit "save" a second time; c) rollback is easier to make mistakes with because you can undo more than one diff at a time (i.e. everything by an author). Am I missing anything?
-- phoebe
No to point A (rollback and undo both show up in contributions/history,
just
like every other edit, I'm 95% sure of this). Yes to point B. No to
point
C (you can undo multiple edits too by viewing a diff page that has
unshown
intermediate diffs). AFAIK all that "undo" does is act like you clicked
the
"edit" link on the older diff displayed and fills in a default edit
summary.
Um, to be clear, I meant under point a) that a *link* to rollback shows up in the page history and contribution histories, whereas a link to undo only shows up in when you're comparing diffs. Thus, the rollback link is easier to get to. Changes made with either button do indeed show up as normal edits. Sorry about unclear wording...
Ah, yes. I can see that's what you meant now, and yeah that is a difference.
On 1/4/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Also AFAIK, "rollback" is special in only a few ways:
- The edit summary is filled automatically and cannot be changed.
It is possible to specify a custom edit summary, and this can be handled gracefully by anti-vandalism software (a bit more difficult without).
2. It does not require two page loads, only one.
Right: undo requires two page loads after viewing a diff, and also for you to send a large amount of data to the server. The rollback permission requires one page load, and you sending a minimal amount of data to the server. Twinkle, by contrast requires three page loads (two medium-to-large page loads, and one small pageload), plus you have to send a large amount of data to the server. Add another page load if you view the main article after saving the edit.
- It fails if the document was edited since you loaded the diff.
With undo (and, to an extent, Twinkle), you're just mincing text based on what the last revision said. Rollback is true revision management, and it's very suitable for anti-vandalism efforts.
--Gracenotes
On 1/4/08, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 7:13 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Old hands will remember the perennial proposal to grant non-admins rollback facilities. We polled on this for 6 months in 2006, 500 people voiced an opinion and we got no consensus.
Well, it's back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_administrator_rollback
ZOMG drama indeed.... but as to the substance of this proposal, I thought that particular perennial proposal more or less went away when the "undo" button was instituted on diffs? Hmm, apparently not.
As far as I can tell, the differences between rollback and undo are that a) rollback shows up in the page history and user contribution histories as well as diffs; b) rollback doesn't require you to hit "save" a second time; c) rollback is easier to make mistakes with because you can undo more than one diff at a time (i.e. everything by an author). Am I missing anything?
Well, it is not clear to me that rolling back only one diff at a time causes less mistakes.
If you look at the article [[Confucius]] on the english wikipedia, there is a long patch there where various anon editors made minor punctuation edits and linking changes etc. which it was very hard to see as vandalism except in aggregation. The whole thing there was made a lot hairier by some script reversion chaps who would only revert a single edit, but leaving the previous subtle miss-edit by the same IP unchanged. And in the end the history of the page became such a morass of IPs doing multiple subtle vandalism edits in a row, and a script riding vandalism hunter only referting the very last one of those, I in the end saw that the simplest way to correct the whole mess was to simply revert back to my own version of 37 revisions ago. (I did look through each edit to note that none of the edits, by either anons, or the single edit reversion scripts added anything of even arguable value to the article).
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 04/01/2008, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, the differences between rollback and undo are that a) rollback shows up in the page history and user contribution histories as well as diffs; b) rollback doesn't require you to hit "save" a second time; c) rollback is easier to make mistakes with because you can undo more than one diff at a time (i.e. everything by an author). Am I missing anything?
-- phoebe
With rollback you can flick to a user's contribs and revert the lot at a rate of greater than one per second. Undo targets edits. Rollback can target users.
I can see why individual users want this, and I can see how it makes their lives a little easier, but I am less convinced of the benefit to the project.
Is there a backlog of identified yet unreverted vandalism needing rolled back? On the contrary, we've edit conflicts of users trying to revert half if it, and the bots usually win.
Now, I guess we can say that there may be marginal benefit in granting it - if it encourages the vandalfighters (do they need encouraging?) fair enough...but....
1) The wastes of time in creating a new "request process"
2) It will lead to at least some disputes, ANI traffic, wheel wars and arbitrations. If I think user x should get it, and you don't....so?
3) If user y thinks I removed it unjustly, where do they appeal? [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review]] - I predict, not in jest.
4) It occupies developers' time: have they not more pressing problems to solve?
5) Instruction creep. Endless discussion over adjustments.
6) Abuse of the tool - and the drama that creates
So, on a cost/benefit analysis, this makes very little sense to me.
Doc
On 1/4/08, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I can see why individual users want this, and I can see how it makes their lives a little easier, but I am less convinced of the benefit to the project.
Is there a backlog of identified yet unreverted vandalism needing rolled back? On the contrary, we've edit conflicts of users trying to revert half if it, and the bots usually win.
Now, I guess we can say that there may be marginal benefit in granting it - if it encourages the vandalfighters (do they need encouraging?) fair enough...but....
The wastes of time in creating a new "request process"
It will lead to at least some disputes, ANI traffic, wheel wars and
arbitrations. If I think user x should get it, and you don't....so?
- If user y thinks I removed it unjustly, where do they appeal?
[[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review]] - I predict, not in jest.
- It occupies developers' time: have they not more pressing problems to
solve?
Instruction creep. Endless discussion over adjustments.
Abuse of the tool - and the drama that creates
So, on a cost/benefit analysis, this makes very little sense to me.
Again nearly all of the above is completely inside out logic. The idea is not to bring in new activity (except in neglible amounts) but to regularize activity that is currently being done via scripts rather than software running on our servers.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
To paraphrase my oppose vote on the discussion page, if it were up to me...
On Jan 4, 2008 4:36 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
- The wastes of time in creating a new "request process"
There would be no new request process; everybody would just have it. (Possibly limit to users with autoconfirm so that rollback can be used by anyone who can edit a semiprotected page.)
2) It will lead to at least some disputes, ANI traffic, wheel wars and
arbitrations. If I think user x should get it, and you don't....so?
See 1.
3) If user y thinks I removed it unjustly, where do they appeal?
[[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review]] - I predict, not in jest.
There would be no way to block rollback privileges, just block the account as usual. The way I see it if we can't trust you with "rollback" we can't trust you with "edit this page" either.
4) It occupies developers' time: have they not more pressing problems to
solve?
It would be a one-shot change.
- Instruction creep. Endless discussion over adjustments.
I raised this point too. Less bureaucracy is better.
6) Abuse of the tool - and the drama that creates
It could not be abused any more than rollback scripts. As for a "faster editing rate" consider tools that do the work for you... just open each rollback link in a new tab. You can open tabs at the same rate as admins can click the rollback link, so your average edit rate is going to be pretty much the same with or without access to the tool.
So, on a cost/benefit analysis, this makes very little sense to me.
As proposed, I completely agree.
On Jan 4, 2008 12:54 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
With rollback you can flick to a user's contribs and revert the lot at a rate of greater than one per second. Undo targets edits. Rollback can target users.
As I understand, non-admins won't be able to rollback from user contribs, only diffs (or page history?) -- at any rate, I know that's one proposal under discussion.
-Luna
On 1/5/08, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand, non-admins won't be able to rollback from user contribs, only diffs (or page history?) -- at any rate, I know that's one proposal under discussion.
Neither here nor there, as javascript can (very easily) be used to add "[rollback]" links to any Special:Contributions page, with URLs to match whatever type of rollback is being used.
—C.W.
I strongly urge everyone to check out a new proposal for regarding the roll-back feature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback#Scripts_an...
"proposal originally made by Gracenotes
"Nearly everyone here has no objection to tools like Twinkle being broadly used, but many have objections to adding the [rollback] button to the user interface. So give autoconfirmed users the technical ability to rollback, an action which requires a unique token, but do not include the rollback button on diff, history, or user contribution pages (i.e., do not include it at all). In this case, rollback can only be accessed with a third-party tool like Twinkle, which everyone seems to agree is fine. The I/O speed and bandwidth issues are solved, and since custom summaries are possible with the rollback permission, there is no loss in the functionality of Twinkle (or other anti- vandalism tools)."
-- Ned Scott
Well, it looks like a coup.
The poll was closed by its supporters a few days ago, having run for barely a week. Fairly outrageous, considering most things are allowed to run for a few weeks minimum, but I assumed it had been closed because with less that 65% support there was an evident lack of consensus.
However, some dev felt differently, judged there to be a consensus, and we now have rollback enabled - without any waring whatsoever.
Admins can switch it off or on, but there's absolutely no agreed policy for when, how, and how disputes are resolved. The inevitable bureaucracy will follow.
This to me is the definition of disruption and the antithesis of consensus.
sigh
doc wrote:
Well, it looks like a coup.
The poll was closed by its supporters a few days ago, having run for barely a week. Fairly outrageous, considering most things are allowed to run for a few weeks minimum, but I assumed it had been closed because with less that 65% support there was an evident lack of consensus.
However, some dev felt differently, judged there to be a consensus, and we now have rollback enabled - without any waring whatsoever.
Admins can switch it off or on, but there's absolutely no agreed policy for when, how, and how disputes are resolved. The inevitable bureaucracy will follow.
This to me is the definition of disruption and the antithesis of consensus.
sigh
Who was the developer? Where is his decision explained? What were his criteria? Where did he announce it? To whom is he accountable? Where do I ask for a reconsideration?
This was bulldozed by some very determined people who were determined to get their way come what may.
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Who was the developer? Where is his decision explained? What were his criteria? Where did he announce it? To whom is he accountable?
Other devs. Brion. The foundation.
Where do I ask for a reconsideration?
You don't. You may beg via a bug report.
This was bulldozed by some very determined people who were determined to get their way come what may.
And they managed that in spite of an effort to bury the thing in endless debate. Slick move. A lot of people trying that run into trouble when they get noticed.
It probably shouldn't have been implemented yet, but, there is little chance that it is going to be removed. Not knowing who to "bug" about this is one issue, and the fact that it is in use, and near 100 people already have this right, is another issue. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=500&am...
Also, this is being discussed in a number of places, including: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikiped...
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback
On Jan 9, 2008 8:26 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Who was the developer? Where is his decision explained? What were his criteria? Where did he announce it? To whom is he accountable?
Other devs. Brion. The foundation.
Where do I ask for a reconsideration?
You don't. You may beg via a bug report.
This was bulldozed by some very determined people who were determined to get their way come what may.
And they managed that in spite of an effort to bury the thing in endless debate. Slick move. A lot of people trying that run into trouble when they get noticed.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I get the feeling some users were betting on this. This should definitely be removed. I would think the arbcom would have authority in this matter, maybe someone should propose a case.
--Ned Scott
On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Rjd0060 wrote:
It probably shouldn't have been implemented yet, but, there is little chance that it is going to be removed.
On 10/01/2008, Ned Scott ned@nedscott.com wrote:
I get the feeling some users were betting on this. This should definitely be removed. I would think the arbcom would have authority in this matter, maybe someone should propose a case.
--Ned Scott
Arbcom have no authority over the devs. Which is perhaps fortunate. Can you imagine having an arbcom case over the recent changes to the way certain elements of template code worked?
On Jan 10, 2008 11:39 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have no authority over the devs. Which is perhaps fortunate. Can you imagine having an arbcom case over the recent changes to the way certain elements of template code worked?
Arbcom could, though, be argued to have authority over people taking questionable claims of en.wp consensus to the developers to support a change.
-Matt
On Jan 10, 2008 10:41 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 11:39 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have no authority over the devs. Which is perhaps fortunate. Can you imagine having an arbcom case over the recent changes to the way certain elements of template code worked?
Arbcom could, though, be argued to have authority over people taking questionable claims of en.wp consensus to the developers to support a change. http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, that would be the limit of it as far as I am concerned. I think I said in my statement that the purpose of arbitrators is to interpret policy, not to make it, and it would be very bad for the community if arbitrators took up the role of determining major policy changes.
Jimbo can and does step in, as he did with Wikipedia:Attribution, when that policy change became problematic.
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 11:39 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have no authority over the devs. Which is perhaps fortunate. Can you imagine having an arbcom case over the recent changes to the way certain elements of template code worked?
Arbcom could, though, be argued to have authority over people taking questionable claims of en.wp consensus to the developers to support a change.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have, following Jimbo's suggestion, filed for arbitration.
On 10/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have no authority over the devs.
You are incorrect. Perhaps Jimmy's statement on the matter will enlighten you a little.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
And another poll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote
On 11/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
And another poll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote
Of course, it could be argued that the description of one of the options as "the current status quo" is misleading...
On Jan 11, 2008 12:12 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
And another poll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote
Of course, it could be argued that the description of one of the options as "the current status quo" is misleading...
I had the same concern so I changed it to "The behavior since [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rollback_consensus|a disputed change]] on Wednesday." .. Which I think is more factual.
Cheers.
This whole thing has really screwed up. It won't happen, I'm sure, but I would scrub this whole thing and try again in a few months; start fresh from the beginning.
Trying to vote on that page is impossible. I voted, and then the header was changed, so I removed my vote. Things are being added, taken away, and modified. What a mess.
On Jan 11, 2008 12:22 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 12:12 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
And another poll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote
Of course, it could be argued that the description of one of the options as "the current status quo" is misleading...
I had the same concern so I changed it to "The behavior since [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rollback_consensus|a disputed change]] on Wednesday." .. Which I think is more factual.
Cheers.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 11, 2008 12:22 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 12:12 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
And another poll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote
Of course, it could be argued that the description of one of the options as "the current status quo" is misleading...
I had the same concern so I changed it to "The behavior since [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rollback_consensus|a disputed change]] on Wednesday." .. Which I think is more factual.
::sigh:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vo...
Then again, the whole thing got blanked and people are now edit warring over it. Someone even edited my vote at some point (I can't be bothered to look and see who). The page was blanked then meta-blanked.
Just freeking fantastic.
On 11/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Then again, the whole thing got blanked and people are now edit warring over it. Someone even edited my vote at some point (I can't be bothered to look and see who). The page was blanked then meta-blanked. Just freeking fantastic.
Considering the deep inconsequentiality of the change in question, I submit that the page in question will be a reliable detector of people who will fight to the death over trivia and so should not be let near anything actually important for any reason. It will also keep them too busy to make trouble near anything actually important.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Considering the deep inconsequentiality of the change in question, I submit that the page in question will be a reliable detector of people who will fight to the death over trivia...
Nicely put.
I have to admit a certain amount of curiosity as to what the imagined consequentiality (in the minds of anyone getting exercised over this) actually is. Based on my cursory understanding, what Rollback gives you (beyond Undo) is:
1. one click instead of two 2. an automatic search for the most recent edit by other than the most recent editor 3. the feeling that you've gotten an admin tool
Am I missing something?
(Don't answer that. I haven't spent minute one reviewing any of the threads for hints, and I wouldn't want anyone else to waste minute one explaining it to me, since it's clear it Really Doesn't Matter That Much.)
On 11/01/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
- the feeling that you've gotten an admin tool
Am I missing something?
That item 3 is also items 4, 5, 6, 1 and 2. I think that's about it. It's about making leveling up an artificially scarce resource.
- d.
On 11/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
- the feeling that you've gotten an admin tool
Am I missing something?
That item 3 is also items 4, 5, 6, 1 and 2. I think that's about it. It's about making leveling up an artificially scarce resource.
Don't forget the new layers of bureaucracy, because we can never pass up an opportunity to add another system. In an open and egalitarian way, of course.
I wonder sometimes if I would even recognise the project if I fell asleep for a year.
David Gerard wrote:
On 11/01/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
- the feeling that you've gotten an admin tool
Am I missing something?
That item 3 is also items 4, 5, 6, 1 and 2. I think that's about it. It's about making leveling up an artificially scarce resource.
Okay, so David and I may have been being a bit cynical there. But then I came across the new [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback]], which proclaims:
Rollback *is not* an honor or a sign of community trust, it is merely a technical feature and getting it is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
So either David and I were being completely cynical, or the cited assertion is a pretty blatant fiction. In all seriousness (i.e., I'm not trying to be ironic or sarcastic or further cynical here): I wonder which it is? And if (as I suspect) the cited assertion is a classic example of a valiant (but failed) attempt to prove an emotionally desired result (despite logic to the contrary) by vehemently asserting it, how do we reconcile that statement, and those who would assert it, with reality?
First they came for the webcomics, but I didn't speak up because most webcomics are crap anyway. Then they came for the spoiler warnings, but I didn't speak up because nobody needs spoilers on Romeo and Juliet anyway. Then they came for the episode articles, but I didn't speak up because it was all unencyclopediac anyway. Then they came for the rollback period....
On 11/01/2008, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
First they came for the webcomics, but I didn't speak up because most webcomics are crap anyway. Then they came for the spoiler warnings, but I didn't speak up because nobody needs spoilers on Romeo and Juliet anyway. Then they came for the episode articles, but I didn't speak up because it was all unencyclopediac anyway. Then they came for the rollback period....
... and things are going just fine, thanks for asking!
- d.
On 11/01/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have no authority over the devs.
You are incorrect. Perhaps Jimmy's statement on the matter will enlighten you a little.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Um no Jimbo is saying that the foundation is has authority over the devs and will consider petitions from arbcom. This does not mean that arbcom has authority over the devs,
On 11/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Um no Jimbo is saying that the foundation is has authority over the devs and will consider petitions from arbcom. This does not mean that arbcom has authority over the devs,
Correct, it's an asking-nicely thing.
- d.
On 11/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Um no Jimbo is saying that the foundation is has authority over the devs and will consider petitions from arbcom. This does not mean that arbcom has authority over the devs,
It amounts to exactly the same thing.
On 11/01/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 11/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Um no Jimbo is saying that the foundation is has authority over the devs and will consider petitions from arbcom. This does not mean that arbcom has authority over the devs,
It amounts to exactly the same thing.
Not at all. The foundation can always tell arbcom that they need to do more to show community consensus.
On 12/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
It amounts to exactly the same thing.
Not at all. The foundation can always tell arbcom that they need to do more to show community consensus.
ArbCom's decisions come after very careful consideration by very smart people. If they ask the Foundation (nicely, as David notes) to make the developers do something, it will happen. Why would the Foundation refuse? They may come back and say "show community consensus", as you say, but it is extremely unlikely that ArbCom will make a decision that does not reflect consensus. It would *be* shown, and in the end, what they ask for will be done.
On 12/01/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
ArbCom's decisions come after very careful consideration by very smart people. If they ask the Foundation (nicely, as David notes) to make the developers do something, it will happen. Why would the Foundation refuse? They may come back and say "show community consensus", as you say, but it is extremely unlikely that ArbCom will make a decision that does not reflect consensus. It would *be* shown, and in the end, what they ask for will be done.
No. There are a dozen apparently simple hopes that could be put up that would be near imposible to jump through.
On 12/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No. There are a dozen apparently simple hopes that could be put up that would be near imposible to jump through.
Your endlessly alluding to things is tedious to the extreme. Kindly put your money where your mouth is and tell us, why don't you?
On 12/01/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 12/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No. There are a dozen apparently simple hopes that could be put up that would be near imposible to jump through.
Your endlessly alluding to things is tedious to the extreme. Kindly put your money where your mouth is and tell us, why don't you?
The foundation would be taking quite a risk by telling arbcom no but they could always state:
Move evidence of community consensus is need There are still unanswered question (to start with the ones they didn't ask) The foundation feels it needs to take soundings from other/more groups(any idea how long it would take to get a comment from every single project?) Arbcom haven't provided enough detail as to how the changes should be made More effort needs to be made to explain the issues to the community Arbcom failed to consider all the possibilities Arbcom need to do more to justify the form their consultation has taken. Then we have timing: The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs until the upcoming elections have been completed The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs until the newly elected memebers have settled in. The foundation wishes to wait until after the next arbcom elections so as to be able to consider the views of the new arbcom members The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs until the audit/move/whatever has been completed The foundation has passed instructions along to the devs and the changes will be made once higher priority code fixes have been made.
Will that do to start with?
On 10/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Where do I ask for a reconsideration?
You don't. You may beg via a bug report.
Doc's concerns are valid ones regarding an abuse of process. Who on Earth do you think you are to make such a statement?
Earle Martin wrote:
On 10/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Where do I ask for a reconsideration?
You don't. You may beg via a bug report.
Doc's concerns are valid ones regarding an abuse of process. Who on Earth do you think you are to make such a statement?
There are reasons why devs are not supposed to act without a clear and settled consensus in the community. Because when they do, it is incredibly disruptive, and that is what is happening right now.
Many of us opposed this. Now, had there been a clear consensus for it, we'd have accepted that - and got on with it.
But this has been done in a way that has appeared sneaky and manipulative from the start, and now we are supposed to accept it? No. This is raising the temperature and causing anger and will be very disruptive.
Most disruptive is the manner in which this has happened. A very short confused poll, over a few days in the Christmas holidays. A bizarre act by some unnamed dev - not accountable to the community at all. 65% of support unprecedently considered a consensus - we don't even risk promoting sysops on that count!!!! Substantial opposition and doubts cast aside. And here we are.
But also, the whole thing is half-baked. There is no policy for its use. No consideration of how we deal with problems. No settled consensus about anything. And now, we'll either have wheel wars or some new b'cratic process - we already have a requests page, then there will be requests for removals to be debated, and people appealing admin decisions (with 1400 admins you'll get bad ones)... and so it will grow. More pages of policy. Posts on ANI. Arbcom. We've already had one user declined and now complaining it was a personal attack. And what happens when another admin grants it?? All this process, for a tool for which no-one has demonstrated the benefit to the project. (Oh, I know there's demand from the vandal fighters - but do we have backlogs of reported yet unreverted vandalism? No, we have 6 users reverting at once).
This needs switched off now, before further damage is done. Then calmly and quietly we can pick our way through this issue and decide what to do. If that leads to a consensus to proceed - then at least we can do so whilst still remaining a community.
Very well said Doc. I supported this before it was implemented, which I now regret, as this has turned into such a mess.
And I'd like to clarify my last post to this list, where I said that nothing will probably happen here, as that is just my opinion.
The alleged acceptance (consensus) to make this available is unfounded, and nobody who knows anything (the developers) are saying a word.
On Jan 9, 2008 9:44 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Earle Martin wrote:
On 10/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Where do I ask for a reconsideration?
You don't. You may beg via a bug report.
Doc's concerns are valid ones regarding an abuse of process. Who on Earth do you think you are to make such a statement?
There are reasons why devs are not supposed to act without a clear and settled consensus in the community. Because when they do, it is incredibly disruptive, and that is what is happening right now.
Many of us opposed this. Now, had there been a clear consensus for it, we'd have accepted that - and got on with it.
But this has been done in a way that has appeared sneaky and manipulative from the start, and now we are supposed to accept it? No. This is raising the temperature and causing anger and will be very disruptive.
Most disruptive is the manner in which this has happened. A very short confused poll, over a few days in the Christmas holidays. A bizarre act by some unnamed dev - not accountable to the community at all. 65% of support unprecedently considered a consensus - we don't even risk promoting sysops on that count!!!! Substantial opposition and doubts cast aside. And here we are.
But also, the whole thing is half-baked. There is no policy for its use. No consideration of how we deal with problems. No settled consensus about anything. And now, we'll either have wheel wars or some new b'cratic process - we already have a requests page, then there will be requests for removals to be debated, and people appealing admin decisions (with 1400 admins you'll get bad ones)... and so it will grow. More pages of policy. Posts on ANI. Arbcom. We've already had one user declined and now complaining it was a personal attack. And what happens when another admin grants it?? All this process, for a tool for which no-one has demonstrated the benefit to the project. (Oh, I know there's demand from the vandal fighters - but do we have backlogs of reported yet unreverted vandalism? No, we have 6 users reverting at once).
This needs switched off now, before further damage is done. Then calmly and quietly we can pick our way through this issue and decide what to do. If that leads to a consensus to proceed - then at least we can do so whilst still remaining a community.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/01/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Where do I ask for a reconsideration?
You don't. You may beg via a bug report.
Doc's concerns are valid ones regarding an abuse of process. Who on Earth do you think you are to make such a statement?
Someone who has long since come to the conclusion that if your solution requires the devs to do something you had better come up with a different solution. The devs have more important things to worry about. They have given you a new feature what you do with it is up to you.
On 1/4/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'll save you the "digging" and copy in what he wrote:
Mike wrote:
I'm probably missing something, but it doesn't seem to me to be a legal threat if one editor notifies another editor that the latter's participation may raise UCMJ or regulations problems. This is not the same thing as threatening to sue. Nor does it strike me as a legal threat to note that some members of the armed forces may be compelled by UCMJ or related regulation to report on-wiki activity that looks like a serviceman (or servicewoman) violating regulation or policy.
To me, a legal threat would look something like this: "If you don't do X (or cease doing Y), then I'm going to report you to the authorities and get you in trouble with your CO." It would *not* look like this: "I'm just letting you know that your participation in this way may create problems for you under the UCMJ or regulations, especially because some of us are obligated by that legal framework to report apparent violations."
My interpretation of at least part of the above is:
A politely worded warning of a legal obligation to report is not considered a legal threat, as it is distinct from a 'threat to sue.'
I previously wrote:
I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
I stand by the interpretation I made in both sentences, and I'm disappointed that you decided I was intentionally misrepresenting Mike's opinion without actually bothering to take the time to look up what he wrote.
Okay. If you hold that your paraphrase is accurate, please point out to me where does Mike Godwin make any reference to wikipedias policies *at all*, much less as to how it would be wrongheaded to construe wikipedias policies in any fashion whatsover.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]